Joined: 9/6/2011Posts: 776Location: the land of enchantment, United States

Dancing_Doll wrote:

Insurance? Sorry babe, we got you beat:

On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world and the first country in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act which provided a gender-neutral marriage definition.

Most areas of Canada are not that cold, and let's not forget that sexy boots and a long scarf can look pretty damn hot. :)

damn you doll! i still have the dungeon basement she will LOVE! ;)littlemissbitch ~ professional face ripper offer, at your service..

i think that the next sexual revolution needs to be fought, not with words, but with weapons. somebody, get me a case of beer and a six shooter. i'm getting on my Hog and headed for Arizonia after making a quick stop at HA headquarters to pick up my body guard! those guys OWE me!

btw, i would never seriously suggest violent protest. but dammit, wtf! if Santorum, by some miracle, wins this election, i'm holing up with Doll and renouncing my US citizenship!

Aww and I was just about to lend you my massive demon army too.

I think this is fucked up, I never was of fan of the conservatives but this just ewww, Whats next a bill that re allows the burning of witches. (Pagans wiccan ect.) Ill join any fight against injustice sprite just tell me where you need me.

yes it does. There's one state (Alabama) in which a majority of voters believes Obama is secretly Muslim, despite the fact that....well, he's not.

Of course PPP only polled 2 states, Alabama and Mississippi. Typical. Polling all states would not get the results that figure into their propaganda.

As far as Arizona, well that is disgusting. I grew up believing in the old GOP, the party of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, the party that passed the civil rights legislation, that believed in being fiscal responsible and conservative, and for decades was considered the educated political party of America. I am sick to death that these neo-nazi types, Spanish Inquisition-Old Testament style Christians that infiltrated the party and ruined it. 25 years ago they were Democrats!

The GOP has died, leaving this nasty ugly Republican Party, in its place. I can not be a Democrat at all. Their party is controlled by leftist that are similar in radicalism as these fools who took over the Republicans. Both Democrats and Republicans believe in BIG GOVERNMENT, BIG SPENDING, which I do not.

"We don’t live in the Soviet Union. So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs." -- Lesko.

No, we live in America, where some of our politicians prefer to lean toward totalitarian endeavours while masking it as "getting back to what made America great." Hey Deb, Government should not have control over peoples rights, including dominion over their own body.

Her and her buddy, Jan Brewer, also passed this little ditty, HB 2281. On its face, much like the legislation being discussed herein, it seems to be a call for equality or protection of rights. Something good for America, right?

On Lesko's site she also says this concerning the 1st Amendment. "We must protect our constitutional rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. We hear of too many cases where these rights are being gradually eroded away. Political correctness and lack of common sense seem to have run amuck." So, you can have freedom of speech, and have your constitutional rights, as long as it's in line with Lesko's ideologies, okay?

If enough of us get sick and tired of the bullshit offered by the two super rich and rotten to the core parties there are alternatives. The Republicans and Democrats keep trying to legislate our daily decisions, morals, how we spend every dime, and the way we live our lives.

The other day someone was loud in the forum about Americans 1.amendment how Americans have right to speak their mind. Well, good for you, because you need to raise your voice, because your one leaders are fucking you over big time. This is ridicules.

Nah, nothing new. The republicans still support laws, as well as a general society, that treats its women as second-class humans and that disenfranchises those who aren't affluent. The exceptions to that rule? The Christians that they hoodwink into going along with their bullshit, both because of and in spite of their agenda.

It's really too bad the democratic party's so flawed itself (otherwise I'd join), but at it's (presentable) core, at least it can actually state its policy goals out loud, since unlike the republicans, their proposed legislation isn't inherently hateful and dismissive to those who are already down several pieces in the chess game of American life. Notice how they steered completely clear of discussing their own platform, it wasn't a coincidence. Alabama, Mississippi, and Arizona republican governments, with their hateful anti-choice, anti-women, and anti-immigrant policy goals, aren't anomalies, it's time we realize that. It's spreading, and fast. Tea Party extremism is now in control of that party, and the America they want to build, God's Plutocracy, is not anything I want to be a part of.

Collectivism, socialism...whatever. I'll take it every day of the week over a country where the motto becomes "everyone for themselves".

You built it? You can have it, assholes. It's hateful...unless you're already well off. I hear the banks in the Caymans are really nice, which makes sense, since you mostly built those, too.

This is all kind of funny. Both sides routinely propose red meat for their constituents, often knowing it will never pass and if it does, it won't survive a constitutional challenge. That's all part of the game of holding onto their fringe constituents. It helps the guy who proposes it to get reelected in his district by being able to say, "I tried". The proposals that do pass often have their teeth filed off by the time they get signed so that they actually alienate only a small group or so they won't get shot down by courts.

But if a bad law gets passed and upheld at the state level, the simple solution is to move out. Let them face the consequences for their religious collectivism or their economic collectivism. That's the beauty of not having every issue centralized. The Europeans do that with the EU. Whatever state gets too bizarre will become a backwater eventually and the people in the other states will benefit from the competitive advantage they gain.

I realize it's fashionable to get all fired up about certain issues and exploit them for partisan purposes, especially to tar an entire party with the actions of a few in a certain state, but getting all caught up in it makes you look kind of naive.

This is all kind of funny. Both sides routinely propose red meat for their constituents, often knowing it will never pass and if it does, it won't survive a constitutional challenge. That's all part of the game of holding onto their fringe constituents. It helps the guy who proposes it to get reelected in his district by being able to say, "I tried". The proposals that do pass often have their teeth filed off by the time they get signed so that they actually alienate only a small group or so they won't get shot down by courts.

But if a bad law gets passed and upheld at the state level, the simple solution is to move out. Let them face the consequences for their religious collectivism or their economic collectivism. That's the beauty of not having every issue centralized. The Europeans do that with the EU. Whatever state gets too bizarre will become a backwater eventually and the people in the other states will benefit from the competitive advantage they gain.

I realize it's fashionable to get all fired up about certain issues and exploit them for partisan purposes, especially to tar an entire party with the actions of a few in a certain state, but getting all caught up in it makes you look kind of naive.

First of all, republicans didn't propose Arizona SB1070 in order to simple dangle red meat to all their constituents. They did it because that's the law they want in place. Same with the onerous abortion laws passed into effect in Mississippi. Same with the dumbasses in Oklahoma that passed a resolution excluding Sharia law from their courtrooms (which is totally unnecessary, because judicial code completely describes what parameters judges are to use for their rulings). The list goes on and on. These are the laws that right-wing republicans, who now have firm control of the party, want for the rest of us, there's really no question about that. Surprise! In 2012, the former fringe is the current base. It's not a matter of tarring an entire party with the actions of the few.

These ideas are the party now. Those with more moderate stances, who look across the aisle for beneficial common ground when possible, who choose not to practice hateful dog-whistle politics vs. the President and other democratic lawmakers, have been politely shown the door, or at least had their mic cut off.

It's without regard to what states these actions are occurring within. As far as all of us just moving when a state makes bad laws? I guess that's one of the many points where you and I part ways. I don't believe a woman should have to fucking leave the state to get an abortion, which is Mississippi's big idea now. I don't believe anyone should have to uproot their life and move to another random portion of the country in order to get some combination of good and affordable health care, or to have better workers rights and/or benefits. I realize that's all right out of the libertarian/conservative theoretical playbook.. I just simply reject it in practice.

Many of the things I'd refer to aren't simply proposals, they're now laws, regardless of whether a future court throws them out. I realize that you're very calm and collected in your Ayn Rand observatory, and I do envy whatever level of zen you manage to maintain with regard to US politics, but I have to say that it's simply not reasonable to expect, for instance, a woman to not vehemently oppose a legislative assault on women's rights because after all, hey, the republicans weren't really serious anyway. They had to placate Jethro in his trailer, whose preacher tells him that women don't need to take no baby-killin' pills, etc. You understand that, right? So rest easy, in four or five short years, after a few court battles, it probably gets thrown out anyway, what are you freaking out about? (grabs cheeks playfully) You worry too much!

I don't have to name for you all the prominent current and prospective lawmakers who advocate a very conservative and nationalist social and judicial agenda. There is much theater in politics, but clearly they feel led by their base, as well as baby Jesus, to put their values into place for the rest of us. That won't, and shouldn't, be taken lightly by anyone who opposes it. I'm unaware of what someone like yourself might deem "naive", or, "fashionable" (other than frequent usage of the word 'collectivist'), all I can vouch for is my own judgement and comment on the actions of what's become mainstream conservatism.

So, as long as we maintain a dialogue on these matters, you'll have to deal with my enthusiasm (interpreted by you as naivete I suppose) and accept that for women, for minorities, for the working class, for an increasing percentage of the national pie, actually...it's really no laughing matter when you hear the rhetoric, and see legislation proposed that means less rights for yourself. It's easier for a male conservative to not comprehend the extreme unease that a liberal female feels in the face of republican spoken agenda and rhetoric, just like it's easy for straight people to wave off the fury caused by Chick-fil-A: "it's no big deal, why get worked up like this?" Because it's my very rights being fought and advocated against, Poindexter, that's why.

Being the staunch objectivist that you are, I'm sure you're familiar with the approaching sensation of lost-rights under a regime of government that doesn't value you in the least, we're just approaching it from different contexts here.

Thanx for that, LadyX. I learn a lot what is going on overseas from you, I never doubt your logic.

But than again if this is too trivial for some people, hey we can always discus, pubic or no pubic hair... I cannot decide if I should be offended, as a woman, or just plain mad that people (Republicans) can even get this kind of a idea. How far back is this going to take us?Do we need another Rosa Park in different context? or should it be feminism all over again? Fighting the same battles over and over is just definition of idiotism..

1ball, nothing is funny about when someone is thinking or even worse saying out loud that your rights of having a choice might be taken away from you. Some games should be played with white glows on, and this is one of them, you don't just say thing just to hear your voice, this is too delicate. And even if it is as you say it is, who are you, no really, to put this subject into worthless? In your whole post, not even one word, that might indicate support women.

So, as long as we maintain a dialogue on these matters, you'll have to deal with my enthusiasm (interpreted by you as naivete I suppose) and accept that for women, for minorities, for the working class, for an increasing percentage of the national pie, actually...it's really no laughing matter when you hear the rhetoric, and see legislation proposed that means less rights for yourself. It's easier for a male conservative to not comprehend the extreme unease that a liberal female feels in the face of republican spoken agenda and rhetoric, just like it's easy for straight people to wave off the fury caused by Chick-fil-A: "it's no big deal, why get worked up like this?" Because it's my very rights being fought and advocated against, Poindexter, that's why.

it's one thing when the argument is abstract, it's being done to a group of people, and it's not right, but it doesn't effect ME personally. when YOU are the one who is being stripped of rights, it's different - when YOU are the one being treated as a second class citizen, de-equalized or less equal, in a country whose entire concept of being is based on liberty and equality for all, then it's a huge issue.

i get the double whammy - female and gay, both, apparently, a state of being that affords me less rights than had i been a straight while male. as a woman, i am watching with growing horror, as my rights are being chipped away by the republican party - want to know why i am voting for Obama? the MAIN reason is that i don't want to see it continue, to see a supreme court that is looking over turning Roe vs Wade, that what is Rape will be redefined, that the rights of victims will be stripped and changed because of the dictates of scripture. damn right we are digging in and taking note. Live, love, laugh.

When Lady X starts using the "Poindexter", you know your ass is grass.

Just to be the devils advocate Lady X, what are these rights you refer to?

You DON'T have a right to make some one else pay for your health care Ins.

You DON'T have a right to demand a job from a perspective employer.

You DON'T have a right to never be fired from said job, ever, for any reason.

You DON'T have a right to make someone else pay for your lifestyle choice as they should not be able to force you to pay for their's.

Example:

You work for an orthodox Jew that tells you he keeps a kosher work place as a sign of respect to God. You bring a ham sandwich for lunch and start to eat it in front of him one day. Oops.

He asks you to not repete this and respect his wishes while in his business.

You can:

A) quit

B) do it again the next day and be fired on cause.

C) Place an emergency call to the local A.C.L.U., explain how your right to a ham sandwich in his business has been violated (then sit back and time how long it takes the person on the other end to stop laughing).

D) eat your delicious ham sandwich somewhere else off business property, stay employed and hopefully get invited as an outsider to his next Seder dinner at Passover ( there yummy, I've been to one, Jewish g/f, didn't end well. Don't get me started.).

Once you blow thru the smoke and spin in the bill it boils down to:

'an employer doesnt have to pay for your contraceptives in part or whole if it violates his religious belief, and if employer and employee can't come to terms, employer may fire employee on cause for this and not have to participate in unemployment benefits for said employee'.

It DOESN'T prohibit the employee from securing health care benefits on their own that would cover the cost of contraception.

It DOSN'T mean you can't continue to use contraception, you just can't use employer provided benefits to pay for them.

It DOESN'T mean Roe v Wade has been overturned and the sky starts falling in 10 minutes.

Look at it his way, if you were the employer of an orthodox Jew you wouldn't be too happy if Jews got a bill passed requiring employer health benefits to pay for circumcisions at their sons Bris, being a religious ceremoney you might not believe in and all.

And how did I get so damn familiar with the Jewish lifestyle from a 6 month relationship. Humm, makes ya think.

RM

"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"RM

i SHOULD have the right to eat a ham sandwich when i am off the clock. I SHOULD have the right to eat healthy, despite my employers religious beliefs as long as i don't do it in a way that causes issues with his business. i SHUOLD have the right to be paid the same amount of money for doing the exact same job as well for as long as the man i am sitting next to.

and ii SHOULD have the right to have health insurance - in fact, under "Obmacare" i HAVE to have health insurance and i SHOULD be covered for whatever my health needs are if everyone else in the workplace is covered...

so, we going to pick and choose what is covered? how about the alcoholic who needs a dialysis and a new kidney - it's ok if HE gets covered, but not me, because i don't want to risk an unwanted pregnancy? how about the smoker, or the guy who eats nothing but meat and candy bars and doesn't exercise - they get covered, but i don't? THOSE are as much lifestyle choices as me having sex. Fair is fair, if THEY get coverage, then i SHOULD get coverage too.

And THAN you're going to complain that i need to take time off of work to give birth to a baby that, had i been able to have contraceptives, i would never have had, or if i'd been able to have an abortion? Better not be complaining to ME that you have to wear a rubber, or are not getting any, because you don't HAVE a rubber. tough luck, buddy.

and you know what? we SEE the scandals this lawmakers are involved in - they're paying for abortions out of TAX payer money, you bet they are, the have GOOD insurance, not the kind i can afford, where i'm stabbed and raped and oh, yeah, want to know how much of the hospital bill came out of my own pocket? sorry, this is not covered, nope, this either, sorry, that doctor is not on our plan. and yeah, men rarely get raped, they don't have to worry about stuff like that, and yeah, i guess what, i WASN'T on the pill, cause IT"S NOT COVERED, so there was a very real chance i could have gotten pregnant, so where does that fall under my coverage...

and yeah, according to Miss. Rep. Asshole Akins, had i gotten pregnant, it wouldn't have been LEGITIMATE Rape - we LIVE in a culture where the people who are making policies THINK like that. They are making legislature BASED on this kind of backwards thinking and it's ok, cause it only affects women, right? so damn straight we are "enthusiastic" about this topic.

btw, gynological exam? yep, paid for a percentage of that too. total cost for being raped: apx. $1,000 out of pocket (that's before adding in the cost of therapy).

'an employer doesnt have to pay for your contraceptives in part or whole if it violates his religious belief, and if employer and employee can't come to terms, employer may fire employee on cause for this and not have to participate in unemployment benefits for said employee'.

That is why we have laws, which are above all, for all. That is why, I as foreign citizen HAVE TO obey rules, laws of the country I live in. I cannot come up with my bullshit, my reasons and my mystical believes, why shouldn't I do so. You are right about sandwich example, because it is not by rules and regulations that every one Have to eat their f.. ham sandwich at noon, it is my personal choice and I can easily subordinate to my employe, however, if my roommate will get her contraceptives in her health care, than I as citizen of the same country Have to have the same rights as she does. And I nor anybody else nor country Laws should care in what exactly that employer Jew, Catholic or Muslim believe in. They live in legalized country and should obey rules of that country, no exceptions. And NO law should change for them.

Joined: 7/9/2012Posts: 79Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning

@SPRITE

Your post went so many directions I don't know where to start but I'll try to bring it all together.

You have a lot of anger and you said that you are in therapy for it, I think that's good because your anger is still misplaced as happens in situations like yours. What happend to you was a terrible thing that no one should have to suffer. The thing that attacked you was not a man, it was a creature that should not exist, unfortunately they still do. My own girlfriend was attacked by a sub-human when she was only 9 years old, she stil deals with that event to this day and probablly always will.

As to the Alcholic that needs a kidney or liver, he rarely receives it unless he's been sobor for at least 7years. Active smoker don't qualify for heart or lung transplants! Period. That insurance industry scripture, there is no appeal.

Yes, do to the nature of the insurance industry and the medical industry, we do "pick and choose" who getsp what and how much of it they will get. You are a fan of Obama-care, you will soon be disappointed as to how much that tactic will increase in the Obama-care future you are eger to embrace.

I would never complain about you taking time to have a child, some might but I'm not one of them. I think Bringing a life into this world is our highest responsibility and greatest pleasure. You should wait until i actually complain about something before you beat me over the head for it. This one point dovetails into another that you made about women only being worth$.75 of a mans dollar. This one fact is a statistical shell game use by many. Taking the wage of a man over a year against a woman doing the same job the woman gets paid less when you look only at the bottom numbers for annual income. When you look deeper you find some women in the group had to take more time off during that year to look after children that got ill or factor time off for delivery and recovery and of course the woman will appear to make less than a man because those instance are not factored in and the actual numbers of hours worked are not stated. Those facts don't make women mad therefore they are of no use to those that twist and then feed this nonsense to you.

Look at it this way. If it were true that a woman only get paid $.75 to the male dollar, I would only hire women and pocket the difference. I would hire only women and save the cost. Economics always tells the truth if you ask it the right question.

I have already penned a letter to Rep. Atkins asking that he return to the Cro magnon period, and if he could take Nancy Pelosi with him he would have someone to grunt with. I expect no reply, must be difficult for him to hold that crayon for any period of time.

As for the condom comment, that's never been a problem because I always thought it was the mans responsibility in the first place, and to the men that get a woman pregnant then run off....FUCK YOU!!!

In all of your post Sprite, nothing compels me to make someone pay for something they spiritually don't believe in no matter how great you think your need is. No one should be able to enslave another to do anything simply because they think their fire burns brighter or their need is greater.

Honestly, the very best of luck to you in what you will go through, sincerely.

RM

"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"RM

Joined: 7/9/2012Posts: 79Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning

She wrote:

That is why we have laws, which are above all, for all. That is why, I as foreign citizen HAVE TO obey rules, laws of the country I live in. I cannot come up with my bullshit, my reasons and my mystical believes, why shouldn't I do so. You are right about sandwich example, because it is not by rules and regulations that every one Have to eat their f.. ham sandwich at noon, it is my personal choice and I can easily subordinate to my employe, however, if my roommate will get her contraceptives in her health care, than I as citizen of the same country Have to have the same rights as she does. And I nor anybody else nor country Laws should care in what exactly that employer Jew, Catholic or Muslim believe in. They live in legalized country and should obey rules of that country, no exceptions. And NO law should change for them.

Don't know where to start actually;

"That is why we have laws, which are above all, for all."

One of thelaws we have here in America is called the "First Amendment" which among many thigs states that; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" The Constitution of the United States is the highest law in our country, look no further, all others laws are subordinate.

The comment about " Mystical beliefs" sounds like a backhanded comment at the religious freedom this country was founded on, I sincerely hope I'm wrong on that. The first settler that came to America didn't come because they heard land was cheep and the native were friendly. They came to escape religious oppression from their European rulers.

Your example of your roommate getting her pills for free so you should too is folly. If I get a bonus check from my employer does that mean your employer owes you one? It's not a law that employers MUST provide health care, it's a benefit to entice you to work for them. Soon it will be an entitlement provided by the government and we will all start not living as long, that way they don't have to increase the social security age for benefits.

You wrote;

"They live in legalized country and should obey the rules of that country, no exceptions."

The Obama administration made exceptions for the Catholic church in Obamacare to exempt them from this very rule and problem(then they later backed out of their agreement...huh, go figure).

I'm not being an ass when I say I had a hard time trying to figure where you were going, a language thing I'm sure. So I hope you don't take my reply that way.

Ours is a country of laws and this one is now law in Arizona, if the Obama administration thinks this law encroaches on their turf they will sue Arizona, he'll its the only thing I think they do, they won't protect Arizonas boarder but they will sue the hell out of them if they try and protect it themself.

We will see.

RM

P.S. what country are you from if you don't mind me asking"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"RM

Your post went so many directions I don't know where to start but I'll try to bring it all together.

You have a lot of anger and you said that you are in therapy for it, I think that's good because your anger is still misplaced as happens in situations like yours. What happend to you was a terrible thing that no one should have to suffer. The thing that attacked you was not a man, it was a creature that should not exist, unfortunately they still do. My own girlfriend was attacked by a sub-human when she was only 9 years old, she stil deals with that event to this day and probablly always will.

As to the Alcholic that needs a kidney or liver, he rarely receives it unless he's been sobor for at least 7years. Active smoker don't qualify for heart or lung transplants! Period. That insurance industry scripture, there is no appeal.

Yes, do to the nature of the insurance industry and the medical industry, we do "pick and choose" who getsp what and how much of it they will get. You are a fan of Obama-care, you will soon be disappointed as to how much that tactic will increase in the Obama-care future you are eger to embrace.

I would never complain about you taking time to have a child, some might but I'm not one of them. I think Bringing a life into this world is our highest responsibility and greatest pleasure. You should wait until i actually complain about something before you beat me over the head for it. This one point dovetails into another that you made about women only being worth$.75 of a mans dollar. This one fact is a statistical shell game use by many. Taking the wage of a man over a year against a woman doing the same job the woman gets paid less when you look only at the bottom numbers for annual income. When you look deeper you find some women in the group had to take more time off during that year to look after children that got ill or factor time off for delivery and recovery and of course the woman will appear to make less than a man because those instance are not factored in and the actual numbers of hours worked are not stated. Those facts don't make women mad therefore they are of no use to those that twist and then feed this nonsense to you.

Look at it this way. If it were true that a woman only get paid $.75 to the male dollar, I would only hire women and pocket the difference. I would hire only women and save the cost. Economics always tells the truth if you ask it the right question.

I have already penned a letter to Rep. Atkins asking that he return to the Cro magnon period, and if he could take Nancy Pelosi with him he would have someone to grunt with. I expect no reply, must be difficult for him to hold that crayon for any period of time.

As for the condom comment, that's never been a problem because I always thought it was the mans responsibility in the first place, and to the men that get a woman pregnant then run off....FUCK YOU!!!

In all of your post Sprite, nothing compels me to make someone pay for something they spiritually don't believe in no matter how great you think your need is. No one should be able to enslave another to do anything simply because they think their fire burns brighter or their need is greater.

Honestly, the very best of luck to you in what you will go through, sincerely.

RM

Nothing about this post makes sense to me. Seriously. Not one thing. At all.

What does someone's spiritual/religious beliefs have to do with my medical needs?

Suppose I'm married and my husband and I aren't ready to have kids? Should I make my husband pull out or wear a condom? So you mean to tell me that all of the self-destructive behaviors mentioned by Sprite above can be condoned, but I can't prevent pregnancy medically?

And you say if spiritual beliefs clash, then my employer can deny me insurance? So if Mr. Muslim hires Mr. Morbidly Obese and he has a heart attack from eating one pork chop too many (Muslims don't eat pork), he gets coverage? But I try to prevent a pregnancy, thus saving the time and the resources it would take to support said pregnancy and I get denied.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to need to see some actual justification. Because any argument FOR this is complete bullshit. And I mean it'd better be a compelling ass argument, otherwise I'm just going to call bullshit.

Many of the things I'd refer to aren't simply proposals, they're now laws, regardless of whether a future court throws them out. I realize that you're very calm and collected in your Ayn Rand observatory, and I do envy whatever level of zen you manage to maintain with regard to US politics, but I have to say that it's simply not reasonable to expect, for instance, a woman to not vehemently oppose a legislative assault on women's rights because after all, hey, the republicans weren't really serious anyway. They had to placate Jethro in his trailer, whose preacher tells him that women don't need to take no baby-killin' pills, etc. You understand that, right? So rest easy, in four or five short years, after a few court battles, it probably gets thrown out anyway, what are you freaking out about? (grabs cheeks playfully) You worry too much!

You forgot about the part where he pats you on the butt and says, "Don't you worry yore purty little head about it, Darlin'. You jest let me an' the men what run this whole shebang handle things from now on..."

In all of your post Sprite, nothing compels me to make someone pay for something they spiritually don't believe in no matter how great you think your need is. No one should be able to enslave another to do anything simply because they think their fire burns brighter or their need is greater.

How about the idea that if a woman wants to avail herself of medically prescribed contraceptives, she can lose her job and her health coverage? Would it be fair if you had to ask your boss's permission to go out and buy yourself a box of condoms? And if your boss said you couldn't, would you suddenly become celibate?

Joined: 7/9/2012Posts: 79Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning

Ok then I must have failed because you're pretty shape 'slippery...', some of what i wrote was directed at SPRITE because her post took the argument off in many different tangents and I tried to address as many as I could. I'll give it another go...

this is really the salient point of my position;

"In all of your post Sprite, nothing compels me to make someone pay for something they spiritually don't believe in no matter how great you think your need is. No one should be able to enslave another to do anything simply because they think their fire burns brighter or their need is greater."

I think that covers it but I'll expand; if you want contraception... Pay for it yourself. It's really no more complex than that. No one is denying you health care... Anywhere. That's it, just that simple.

A Catholic believes condoms are an affront to God, you don't have the right to make him pay for them simply because you don't AND you don't want to take the coin out of your purse.

You can still have the pills you want you just have to pay for them yourself, you can't compel someone to go against their religious belief because you think you need outweighs their convenant with God.

Frankly I wouldn't have the gaul to ask someone else to pay for my condoms and I wouldn't want them to know my sexual habits because it's not their business.

I hope that makes it clear, if not I check the post and I'll get your opinion no doubt.

RM

"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"RM

Ok then I must have failed because you're pretty shape 'slippery...', some of what i wrote was directed at SPRITE because her post took the argument off in many different tangents and I tried to address as many as I could. I'll give it another go...

this is really the salient point of my position;

"In all of your post Sprite, nothing compels me to make someone pay for something they spiritually don't believe in no matter how great you think your need is. No one should be able to enslave another to do anything simply because they think their fire burns brighter or their need is greater."

I think that covers it but I'll expand; if you want contraception... Pay for it yourself. It's really no more complex than that. No one is denying you health care... Anywhere. That's it, just that simple.

A Catholic believes condoms are an affront to God, you don't have the right to make him pay for them simply because you don't AND you don't want to take the coin out of your purse.

You can still have the pills you want you just have to pay for them yourself, you can't compel someone to go against their religious belief because you think you need outweighs their convenant with God.

Frankly I wouldn't have the gaul to ask someone else to pay for my condoms and I wouldn't want them to know my sexual habits because it's not their business.

I hope that makes it clear, if not I check the post and I'll get your opinion no doubt.

One of thelaws we have here in America is called the "First Amendment" which among many thigs states that; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" The Constitution of the United States is the highest law in our country, look no further, all others laws are subordinate.

This one was easy, right?

RobinMaxwell760 wrote:

The comment about " Mystical beliefs" sounds like a backhanded comment at the religious freedom this country was founded on, I sincerely hope I'm wrong on that. The first settler that came to America didn't come because they heard land was cheep and the native were friendly.

You don't say! It is a comment about my mystical believes, that is why I used word I and my

She wrote:

That is why, I as foreign citizen HAVE TO obey rules, laws of the country I live in. I cannot come up with my bullshit, my reasons and my mystical believes, why shouldn't I do so.

RobinMaxwell760 wrote:

They came to escape religious oppression from their European rulers.

and I always thought that reason for great migrations was hunger

RobinMaxwell760 wrote:

Your example of your roommate getting her pills for free so you should too is folly. If I get a bonus check from my employer does that mean your employer owes you one? It's not a law that employers MUST provide health care, it's a benefit to entice you to work for them. Soon it will be an entitlement provided by the government and we will all start not living as long, that way they don't have to increase the social security age for benefits.

Why is it folly? The only folly thing is that last night I completely forgot that health care is a benefit in your country. I have health care system that is a must for employers. For how long is it going to be in this form not sure, but for now, if my roommate is getting pills, I want them as well.

RobinMaxwell760 wrote:

You wrote;

"They live in legalized country and should obey the rules of that country, no exceptions."

My point of view, how I think it should be.

RobinMaxwell760 wrote:

The Obama administration made exceptions for the Catholic church in Obamacare to exempt them from this very rule and problem(then they later backed out of their agreement...huh, go figure).

That is one of the reason why I strongly believe that religion must be separated from country and its laws. Catholic church backed out, lol

RobinMaxwell760 wrote:

I'm not being an ass when I say I had a hard time trying to figure where you were going, a language thing I'm sure. So I hope you don't take my reply that way.

aaa, for sure it is just a language thing and not me being plain stupid.

RobinMaxwell760 wrote:

Ours is a country of laws and this one is now law in Arizona, if the Obama administration thinks this law encroaches on their turf they will sue Arizona, he'll its the only thing I think they do, they won't protect Arizonas boarder but they will sue the hell out of them if they try and protect it themself.

We will see.

RM

P.S. what country are you from if you don't mind me asking

Fingers crossed for Arizona!!!

here explanation for the rest of my post:

She wrote:

You are right about sandwich example, because it is not by rules and regulations that every one Have to eat their f.. ham sandwich at noon, it is my personal choice and I can easily subordinate to my employe,

meaning, we have liberty to eat what we want (say, do..what we want) as long as we are not harming someone else by doing that and if my employer is Jew, I will have to respect his laws of the business, because it is his business. However, I think that this should be valid only for trivial thing as eating habits.

She wrote:

And I nor anybody else nor country Laws should care in what exactly that employer Jew, Catholic or Muslim believe in. They live in legalized country and should obey rules of that country, no exceptions.And NO law should change for them.

Here I am saying that religion shouldn't interfere into the laws of the country. As I said before, I strongly believe that religion and country should separate.

I always thought Think Tank is for us to express personal point of view on the subject, but than again I was away for a while

P.S

RobinMaxwell760 wrote:

You have a lot of anger and you said that you are in therapy for it, I think that's good because your anger is still misplaced as happens in situations like yours...

this is something you shouldn't write in the forum, it is hers to share not yours. And even if she wrote it down somewhere,are you using that as argument against her? personally think this is punch below the belt.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.